U.S. Death Toll in Iraq Surpassed 2,000

[Element]

But the right wing would tell you it was Clinton's fault too, right? just like the right wing blames everything on him.

Yeah, and the left wingers never blame anything on Bush.

[realmofotalk]

Yeah, and the left wingers never blame anything on Bush.

Of course they do. Both parties blame each other just as much.

[realmofotalk]

Yeah, and the left wingers never blame anything on Bush.

Hey, as a neo-con yourself, why not list some reasons why you love Dubya.

[rockin500]

Yes, but I ask you, was it for a worthy cause?

worthy enough for me.

[realmofotalk]

worthy enough for me.

It's your opinion and I have nothing to add and I will just simply nod in agreement and not start a flame war.

[Bosox21]

Since now the reason we went is to liberate the Iraqi people, im going to sound very selfish. My Brother in Law went to Iraq just got back in one peice, but he's going back. His life to me is priceless, I dont care what their doing to each other over there as long as I have my family safe, sorry but thats how I feel.

[RockSports17]

Nah I'm with you BoSox. My bro is heading off to Iraq pretty soon, and I really could care less about anything as long as he comes back safe and alive.

[Hmark6]

Michelle Malkin said it best:

"The anti-war Left couldn't wait for the death of the 2,000th soldier in Iraq. Peace activists have been gearing up for protests, vigils, and other events this week to mark the completely bogus milestone. Why 2,000? Was the 2nd or 555th or 1,678th death not as worth mourning as any other death with nice round numbers? For the "peace activists" who hate the president with far more energy than they could ever muster in genuine support of our troops, this simple request to appreciate the fruits of hard-fought freedom is too much to ask. And too much for them to bear."

[realmofotalk]

The liberal media is to blame for touting it as a milestone. The number 2,000 just clicks on people's minds.

[Slyder]

Anyone who looks at history of warfare and thinks 2000 deaths is some big number... The US had that many killed in the first attack at many civil war battles, D-Day, one day at Pearl Harbor left 2,400+ dead, 9-11 left near 3,000. If we expect that war will ever get to the point that no one dies, then we will have constant warfare.

[realmofotalk]

Anyone who looks at history of warfare and thinks 2000 deaths is some big number... The US had that many killed in the first attack at many civil war battles, D-Day, one day at Pearl Harbor left 2,400+ dead, 9-11 left near 3,000. If we expect that war will ever get to the point that no one dies, then we will have constant warfare.

The difference between WWII and the current war in Iraq is that since President Bush declared that major combat operations had ended, 1,458 US soldiers were killed by hostile action. The Germans and Japanese weren't killing stationed US soldiers by the thousands after major combat operations ended.

[Saber]

Do you really think that declaration of the end of combat operations makes Operation Iraqi Freedom in any way worse than World War II?

Do I even have to take the time to compare the two?

[realmofotalk]

Do you really think that declaration of the end of combat operations makes Operation Iraqi Freedom in any way worse than World War II?

Where did I say that? You can't compare a World War with the war in Iraq. It certainly isn't good having over 1,400 killed after the declaration of the end of combat operations.

[Saber]

No, it isn't good. It also isn't good to allow one of history's most evil men to slaughter tens of thousands more innocents. It is these innocents that soldiers die to protect, and exactly what makes them heroes to Americans and Iraqis.

You may not like this, but sometimes men will die for something greater than themselves, even if what they're fighting for speaks a different language or isn't related to you.

[realmofotalk]

No, it isn't good. It also isn't good to allow one of history's most evil men to slaughter tens of thousands more innocents. It is these innocents that soldiers die to protect, and exactly what makes them heroes to Americans and Iraqis.

You may not like this, but sometimes men will die for something greater than themselves, even if what they're fighting for speaks a different language or isn't related to you.

That's fine, except that we were told at the beginning that they were there to disarm the sicko of the weapons of mass destruction he allegedly had (the President clearly said in his address right before the war that the US had given him a time window to surrender such weapons), not to ultimately establish a democracy in the country.